ArticleScientific reports2023
Effects of occipital-atlas stabilization on the upper cervical spine rotation combinations: an in vitro study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultrasound-guided needle-knife release for treatment-refractory cervicogenic headache: a case report.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to compare axial rotation range of motion for the upper cervical spine during three movements: axial rotation, rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending and rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending before and after occiput-atlas (C0-C1) stabilization. Ten cryopreserved C0-C2 specimens (mean age 74 years, range 63-85 years) were manually mobilized in 1. axial rotation, 2. rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending and 3. rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending without and with a screw stabilization of C0-C1. Upper cervical range of motion and the force used to generate the motion were measured using an optical motion system and a load cell respectively. The range of motion (ROM) without C0-C1 stabilization was 9.8° ± 3.9° in right rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending and 15.5° ± 5.9° in left rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending. With stabilization, the ROM was 6.7° ± 4.3° and 13.6° ± 5.3°, respectively. The ROM without C0-C1 stabilization was 35.1° ± 6.0° in right rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending and 29.0° ± 6.5° in left rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending. With stabilization, the ROM was 25.7° ± 6.4° (p = 0.007) and 25.3° ± 7.1°, respectively. Neither rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending (left or right) or left rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending reached statistical significance. ROM without C0-C1 stabilization was 33.9° ± 6.7° in right rotation and 28.0° ± 6.9° in left rotation. With stabilization, the ROM was 28.5° ± 7.0° (p = 0.005) and 23.7° ± 8.5° (p = 0.013) respectively. The stabilization of C0-C1 reduced the upper cervical axial rotation in right rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending and right and left axial rotations; however, this reduction was not present in left rotation + extension + contralateral lateral bending or both combinations of rotation + flexion + ipsilateral lateral bending.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.